Federal Practitioner

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an acceptable way to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), new research suggests.

In a survey study, participants attending an urban outpatient buprenorphine clinic reported a high degree of satisfaction with SMAs. However, the majority also reported they preferred individual appointments.

Still, SMAs may serve a role in providing comprehensive care for certain subpopulations with OUD who are prone to isolation and may also increase capacity to treat more patients with a substance use disorder (SUD), said coinvestigator Serra Akyar, MD, Northwell Health Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

“By providing education and a forum for sharing, SMAs can lead to changes in behavior and enhance and reinforce coping and problem-solving skills,” Dr. Akyar said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry 31st Annual Meeting.
 

SMA vs. group therapy

SMA is not a form of group therapy, Dr. Akyar noted. Group therapy has a psychotherapy component and is led by a therapist. SMAs do not have a psychotherapeutic or a behavioral therapy component but provide education and an opportunity for sharing personal experiences of recovery.

“For example, the doctor participating in the group describes what happens in the brain to drive addiction and fellow participants share their personal anecdotes of recovery, including their struggles and successes,” Dr. Akyar said.

“While SMAs and group therapy seem similar, using the terms interchangeably would be incorrect given the differences in the type of care each group provides,” she added.

Recent research on SMAs for OUD is limited. Although previous studies have shown that the practice is highly acceptable and has comparable or better retention in care rates with buprenorphine versus individual appointments, these studies have been conducted in predominantly White populations and in suburban settings.

For the new study, the investigators wanted to examine how acceptable SMAs for OUD would be in an urban setting involving predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

They administered a 15-minute survey to patients with OUD who were attending the Comprehensive Addiction Resources and Education Center, an outpatient psychiatry clinic located at New Jersey Medical School, from December 2019 to February 2020.

Of the 42 participants who initially consented, 39 completed the survey. The majority of the responders were Black (64.1%), had an annual income that was less than $20,000 (61.5%), and/or were unemployed or disabled (69.3%).

Most of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

• Scheduling appointments for SMAs is easy.
• I gain valuable information from the responses to other patients’ questions in SMAs.
• There is enough time for questions during SMAs.
• I gain valuable information from the doctor and social worker in SMAs.
• My medical needs are met during SMAs.
• I would recommend an SMA to other patients.
• Since starting SMAs, I find it easier to stick to my treatment plan.
• I have a lot of support outside of SMAs.
• People in SMAs give me the support I need to stick to my treatment plan.

Interestingly, despite the overall high satisfaction with SMAs, just 33% of participants said they preferred them to one-on-one visits, Dr. Akyar noted.

Further analyses showed that total satisfaction scores were positively associated with older age, being on disability, or being in retirement.
 

Bridging the gap

In a comment, Philip Wong, MD, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, noted that a more widespread use of SMAs could potentially bridge the treatment gap that currently exists in the United States.

“For providers, SMAs help reduce costs, improve productivity, prevent repeating of common advice, and increase outreach. These are all important at a time when the need for OUD treatment is increasing. This is especially true for places like Newark, which is one of the prime epicenters of the opioid epidemic,” said Dr. Wong.

Although he was not involved with this research, he and his colleagues recently conducted a literature review of publications relating to SMAs and found seven peer-reviewed articles. However, none was appropriately designed to compare SMAs with traditional one-on-one recovery treatment.

“We definitely need more clinical studies to further our understanding of SMAs as a tool for the medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Wong said.

“There are currently a very limited number of physicians who can prescribe medication-assisted treatment in the first place. So, if that one provider can reach a larger community by doing these SMAs, then the potential is very great in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic,” he said.

David Kan, MD, chief medical officer of Bright Heart Health, San Ramon, Calif., agreed.

“SMAs are promising because they are efficient and allow more people to access treatment,” Dr. Kan said in an interview.

“Although the mechanism of SMA satisfaction is unclear, other research shows peer support and groups helpful for SUD treatment as a whole. SMA takes the best of many worlds and increases the potential number of patients treated for SUD,” he said.

Also asked to comment, Lewei (Allison) Lin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said SMAs “are one of a number of important interventions that should be considered” in order to increase availability and access to medication providers for OUD.

However, more research is needed “to examine the impact on treatment uptake and patient and provider experiences,” said Dr. Lin.

Dr. Akyar, Dr. Wong, Dr. Kan, and Dr. Lin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

Rare cancers comprise about 20% of all cancers in the United States and Europe, according to recent estimates, but patients with rare cancers are vastly underrepresented in clinical trials.

Recently, there has been a focus on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in common cancer types. Since several rare tumor types share similar biologic features with the more common tumors, there is a need to test ICB in rare tumors, particularly because remissions with ICB can be durable.

Enter the DART trial, a phase 2, single-arm study of combinatorial ICB with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic rare cancers.

Results from DART were recently presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting. Michael J. Wagner, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reported results in patients with advanced or unresectable angiosarcoma, one of the rare tumor types included in DART.
 

About angiosarcomas

Angiosarcomas account for less than 3% of all adult soft-tissue sarcomas, according to a review published in The Lancet Oncology. Angiosarcomas may arise in any part of the body, especially the head and neck (27%), breast (19.7%), and extremities (15.3%). These cancers can be primary or secondary (i.e., associated with prior radiation therapy or chronic lymphedema).

Angiosarcomas are aggressive, difficult to treat, and confer high mortality. The tumors are responsive to chemotherapy, but responses are brief. The estimated 5-year survival rate for all patients with angiosarcoma, including those who present with localized disease, is 30%-40%.

According to Dr. Wagner, a subset of angiosarcomas are characterized by high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and COSMIC signature 7, a DNA mutational signature that is consistent with other cancers caused by ultraviolet light exposure.

The high TMB subset of angiosarcomas is comparable with other cancer types that are responsive to ICB. Indeed, patients with angiosarcoma treated with ICB have shown responses, according to research published in the Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. However, no prospective studies of ICB in angiosarcoma have been published.
 

About DART

The DART trial includes more than 50 cohorts of rare cancer subtypes. Patients receive IV ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks and IV nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks.

The primary endpoint is objective response rate, as assessed by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, stable disease at 6 months, and toxicity.

The trial has a two-stage design. Six patients are enrolled in the first stage, and, if at least one patient responds to treatment, an additional 10 patients are enrolled in the second stage.

If at least two responses are seen among the 16 patients enrolled, further study of ICB is considered warranted.
 

Results in angiosarcoma

Dr. Wagner reported on the 16 angiosarcoma patients enrolled in DART. Nine patients had cutaneous primary tumors, seven had noncutaneous primary tumors, and three patients had radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast or chest wall.

Patients had received a median of two (range, zero to five) prior lines of therapy.

Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior safety results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab combination. Three-quarters of patients experienced an AE of any grade. The most common AEs were transaminase elevation, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, pruritus, and rash.

A quarter of patients had a grade 3-4 AE, and 12.5% of AEs led to premature treatment discontinuation. There were no fatal AEs.

The ORR was 25%. Responses occurred in 4 of the 16 patients, including 3 of 5 patients with primary cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face and 1 of 3 patients with radiation-associated breast angiosarcoma.

Two of the four responses and one case of stable disease have persisted for almost a year, and these patients remain on treatment. To put these results into perspective, Dr. Wagner noted that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy rarely last 6 months.

The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 38%. The median overall survival has not yet been reached.

Dr. Wagner concluded that the combinatorial ICB regimen employed in DART was well tolerated and had an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma regardless of primary site. Per the criteria of the DART trial, further investigation of ICB in angiosarcoma is warranted.
 

Molecular insights

Although correlative analyses of tumor tissue and peripheral blood are embedded in the DART trial, those analyses have not yet been performed. Eight of the 16 angiosarcoma patients had diagnostic molecular studies performed at their parent institutions, utilizing a variety of commercial platforms.

All eight patients for whom molecular data were available had at least two deleterious genomic alterations detected, but each had a distinct molecular profile.

Seven patients had TMB analyzed, including two partial responders to ICB. One of the seven patients had a high TMB, and this patient was one of the two responders. The other responder had an intermediate TMB.

Three patients had programmed death–ligand 1 staining on their tumors. Two of the three had high expression of PD-L1, including the responder with an intermediate TMB.
 

The real impact of DART

The DART trial is a “basket trial,” employing a similar treatment regimen for multiple tumor types. It provides a uniform framework for studying tumors that have been neglected in clinical trials heretofore.

Although the cohort of angiosarcoma patients is small, central pathology review was not required, and the treatment regimen was not compared directly with other potential therapies, the reported results of the ipilimumab-nivolumab regimen justify further study.

The biospecimens collected in DART will provide a rich source of data to identify common themes among responders and nonresponders, among patients who experience durable remissions and those who do not.

Angiosarcoma is not the only rare cancer for which combinatorial ICB has been valuable under the auspices of the DART trial. In Clinical Cancer Research, investigators reported an ORR of 44% among patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers, independent of primary site of origin. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 31%.

The DART trial is available at more than 800 sites, providing access to potentially promising treatment in a rigorous, scientifically valuable study for geographically underserved populations, including patients who live in rural areas.

The key message for practicing oncologists and clinical investigators is that clinical trials in rare tumors are feasible and can yield hope for patients who might lack it otherwise.

DART is funded by the National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Wagner disclosed relationships with Deciphera, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Athenex, and Incyte.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wagner M et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 795.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 has thrown a wrench in standard treatment protocols for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These patients already face a greater risk of dying from infections, and recent research suggests they tend to have risk factors that increase their likelihood of complications and death from COVID-19.

In August, a group of oncologists from the United States and Europe published a literature-informed expert opinion to help their colleagues navigate this new CLL treatment landscape. It offers a roadmap for balancing patients’ therapeutic needs against their risk for viral infection and outlines the safest course of action for patients who test positive for COVID-19.

Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the Division of Medical Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, was contacted for comment to break down what clinicians need to know about treating CLL during the pandemic. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: What prompted you and colleagues from the United States and Europe to write these recommendations?

Dr. Shadman: When we began the collaboration earlier this year, our colleagues in Italy and the rest of Europe had more experience with COVID-19, so they led the effort. We wanted to help oncologists manage their patients with CLL during the pandemic based on the evidence we had at the time and the unknowns we faced.
 

What’s an example of how the available evidence informed your recommendations?

At the time, we didn’t know whether patients with CLL were more likely to get COVID-19, compared to the general population, but we did have evidence already that cancer increases patients’ risk of bad outcomes and death from COVID-19. CLL, for example, can increase risk factors for infection, including hypogammaglobulinemia, innate immune dysfunction, and neutropenia, which may be exacerbated by anticancer treatments. Patients’ existing immune suppression might prevent or delay their ability to react to or cope with the virus. And many patients with CLL have other conditions that increase their risk of a severe response to COVID-19, including older age (70% of CLL patients are older than 65 years), hypertension (21%), and diabetes (26%).

These factors informed our recommendations to limit patients’ exposure to COVID-19 by reducing or postponing the number of in-person visits and routine in-hospital follow-ups, especially if they could be substituted with virtual check-ins.
 

The expert opinion recommendations are divided into three main categories: patients who are newly diagnosed with CLL but have not begun receiving therapy, those already receiving therapy but are free of COVID-19, and those who test positive for COVID-19. Let’s start with the first category. What do the recommendations say about waiting versus proceeding for newly diagnosed patients?

Our priority was balancing the negative impacts of getting COVID-19 with the negative impacts of postponing cancer treatment. We suggested taking each new CLL case on a patient-by-patient basis to determine who needed treatment tomorrow and who could wait a few weeks or months. Fortunately, CLL rarely requires immediate therapy, so the preference was to postpone treatment a few weeks, depending on the local COVID-19 outbreak situation.

In my practice, for instance, we tried to postpone visits as much as we could. Before the pandemic, patients with CLL in the watch-and-wait phase – those diagnosed but who don’t require treatment immediately – would come in for bloodwork and exams every 3-6 months. But when the pandemic hit, we skipped 3-month visits for patients with stable lab results and switched to telehealth visits instead. For those who needed blood draws, we used local labs closer to the patient’s home to minimize their exposure and transportation requirements.

When treatment cannot be deferred, we’ve recommended starting patients on therapies that require fewer in-person visits and are less immune suppressive. We recommended oncologists consider Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, as well as venetoclax. Some research suggests these inhibitors may be protective against COVID-19 by blunting a patient’s hyperinflammatory response to the virus. These drugs also require minimal routine treatment and lab visits, which helps limit patients’ potential exposure to COVID-19.

But there are risks to waiting. Even during the peak of the pandemic here in Seattle, if patients needed treatment immediately, we did not delay. Patients with significant drops in their platelet or neutrophil count or those with bulky disease, for instance, do require therapy.

It’s important to mention that we did have bad experiences with patients who needed immediate treatment and their treating physicians decided to wait because of COVID-19 risks. These patients who came in with aggressive CLL and experienced delays in care had much more complicated CLL treatment than if they had started treatment earlier.

When organ function became abnormal, for example, some patients could no longer receive certain therapies. If someone’s kidney function becomes abnormal, I wouldn’t recommend giving a drug like venetoclax. Although rare, some patients on venetoclax develop tumor lysis syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure.

Bottom line: Don’t just assume it’s a low-grade disease and that you can wait.



What about patients already receiving treatment for CLL who are free of COVID-19?

For patients on active treatment, we suggested stopping or holding treatment with monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, and chemotherapy regimens, such as idelalisib plus rituximab and duvelisib, when possible. We recommended oncologists consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.



What happens if a patient with CLL tests positive for COVID-19?

If a patient tests positive for COVID-19 but is not yet on CLL treatment, we recommend postponing CLL care until they’ve recovered from the infection. If a patient is already receiving treatment, the recommendations are similar to those above for COVID-19–negative patients: Delay care for those on chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, but consider continuing treatment for patients on BTK inhibitors.
 

The expert opinion was submitted in May and ultimately published in August. How has our understanding of treating CLL during the pandemic changed since then? Would you change any recommendations?

When we published this paper, it was still early on in the pandemic, and we didn’t know as much about COVID-19 and CLL as we do now. Since we published the recommendations, we have received confirmation from several studies that patients with cancer have a more complicated course of COVID-19 and have worse outcomes. But I believe the recommendations we devised early in the pandemic still hold now. Decisions about delivering treatment should be influenced by the local COVID-19 numbers and hospital resources as well as the patient’s specific situation – whether they have more stable disease and can delay or postpone care or whether they need more immediate attention.

With a further surge in cases predicted as we move even deeper into flu season, what would you recommend for initiating treatment in newly diagnosed patients?

The pandemic has created a very fluid situation for treating CLL. What’s happening now in Seattle may not be the same story in New York, California, or elsewhere. In early November [when Dr. Shadman was first contacted], in Seattle, we were not postponing care because our COVID-19 numbers were fairly good. But, as of mid December, that is starting to change as the COVID-19 numbers fluctuate.
 

If we do experience a second peak of COVID-19 cases, we would need to modify our practice as we did during the initial surge earlier this year. That would mean avoiding treatment with monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy, as well as minimizing blood draws and drugs that require frequent in-person visits.
 

How important is it for patients to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

There are two key things to consider about a vaccine. Is the vaccine safe from the general safety standpoint that everyone is worried about? And if the vaccine is not harmful, will it work in patients will CLL?

Because we don’t yet know the complete side-effect profile of a COVID-19 vaccine, we would need to assess each patient’s condition to limit adverse reactions and to see whether the vaccine alters a patient’s immune response to the CLL drug they’re taking.

At the University of Washington, Seattle, we have a plan to start studying the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in patients with CLL – carefully assessing patients’ response to the vaccine in terms of antibody response. We already know, based on small studies, that the antibody response to the flu vaccine, for instance, is not as strong in patients with CLL, compared to those without. But, overall, as long as the vaccine won’t cause harm, I would recommend my patients get it.

Dr. Shadman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.

Dexamethasone can have a detrimental effect on survival in patients with glioblastoma who are receiving immunotherapy, according to a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

Investigators found that baseline dexamethasone use was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma patients receiving anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 therapy. In fact, in a multivariable analysis, baseline dexamethasone use was the strongest predictor of poor survival.

These results “support accumulating concerns that corticosteroids can be detrimental to immunotherapy for oncology patients,” wrote senior study author David Reardon, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues.

The concerns are particularly relevant for glioblastoma patients because dexamethasone is a cornerstone of glioblastoma therapy, being used to reduce tumor-associated edema. Patients often receive dexamethasone early on and in significant doses for a protracted period of time to stay ahead of evolving symptoms.

However, the current study suggests dexamethasone and other corticosteroids may be contraindicated in glioblastoma patients on immunotherapy. Therefore, Dr. Reardon and colleagues recommended “careful evaluation of dexamethasone use” in these patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient requires corticosteroids, and they often do for debilitating symptoms, only use these drugs if the patient really needs them,” Dr. Reardon advised. “Start at a low dose and use the shortest treatment interval possible.”
 

Preclinical and clinical results

Dr. Reardon and colleagues initially evaluated the effects of dexamethasone when administered with PD-1 blockade and/or radiotherapy in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model.

Most mice that received anti–PD-1 monotherapy were cured, but the benefit of anti–PD-1 therapy was significantly diminished, in a dose-dependent manner, when dexamethasone was added.

At 100 days, the OS rate was about 76% in the anti–PD-1 monotherapy group, 47% when dexamethasone was given at 1 mg/kg, 31% with dexamethasone at 2.5 mg/kg, and 27% with dexamethasone at 10 mg/kg.

A mechanistic study, including analysis of immune cells in the spleen, showed that dexamethasone decreased intratumoral T cells and systemic levels of T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells, while qualitatively impairing lymphocyte function. The mechanism of T-cell depletion included induction of apoptosis, which was noted as soon as 1 hour after the dexamethasone dose, Dr. Reardon said.

The researchers also evaluated 181 consecutive glioblastoma patients treated with PD-1– or PD-L1–targeted therapy. The study included a multivariable statistical analysis that accounted for age, performance status, extent of resection, size of tumor, bulk tumor burden, and MGMT promoter methylation status.

In an initial unadjusted analysis, baseline dexamethasone decreased the median OS to 8.1 months when it was given at less than 2 mg daily and 6.3 months when given at 2 mg or more daily. The median OS was 13.1 months for patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

After multivariable adjustment, baseline dexamethasone eliminated the survival benefit of immunotherapy, the researchers said. The hazard ratio was 2.16 (P = .003) when dexamethasone was given at less than 2 mg daily and 1.97 (P = .005) with dexamethasone at 2 mg or more daily, compared with no baseline dexamethasone.

In fact, the strongest negative risk factor for OS was the use of dexamethasone at initiation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
 

Implications: Use corticosteroids ‘very judiciously’

The results of this research suggest “corticosteroids can be detrimental when used along with checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Reardon said. He added that this effect could extend to other immunotherapies, such as vaccines, cellular therapies, and oncolytic viruses.

“We need to understand what is driving the inflammatory response,” Dr. Reardon said. “Other targets in the downstream pathway may be regulated to avoid the detrimental effect of corticosteroids.”

Ongoing prospective clinical trials need to build in whether concurrent use of corticosteroids leads to poorer outcomes, according to Dr. Reardon.

“We are validating this prospectively in ongoing clinical trials to evaluate differences in outcome in glioblastoma patients and exploring different types of immunotherapies,” he said.

Though questions remain, Dr. Reardon advises judicious use of corticosteroids or even substituting corticosteroids with bevacizumab in glioblastoma patients.

“If a glioblastoma patient develops debilitating symptoms due to swelling in the brain and is a candidate for immunotherapy, then consider using bevacizumab to avoid using corticosteroids,” Dr. Reardon said, adding that this is being tested prospectively in a clinical trial as well.

“We know corticosteroids have a host of side effects. An additional side effect may be limiting immune function in brain cancer patients and jeopardizing the potential benefits of immunotherapy going forward. I implore practicing oncologists to use corticosteroids very judiciously and as little as possible for as little time as possible,” Dr. Reardon said.

This research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and support from various foundations and institutions. The researchers disclosed relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu JB et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2291.

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Parts of three linked studies investigating increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been “paused” because of futility and safety concerns, a statement from the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) confirms.

The trials involved are the REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC studies.

All three trials have paused enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit support for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs did not reduce the need for organ support, the NHLBI statement notes.

The statement also says that a potential for harm in this subgroup could not be excluded, noting that increased bleeding is a known complication of full-dose anticoagulation. The trials are working urgently to undertake additional analyses, which will be made available as soon as possible.   

The three clinical trial platforms are working together to test the effects of full therapeutic doses of anticoagulants vs. lower prophylactic doses in COVID-19 patients.

Informed by the deliberations of the data safety monitoring boards of these trials, all of the trial sites have paused enrollment of the most critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19. 

Enrollment continues in the trials for moderately ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the statement notes.  

“Whether the use of full-dose compared to low-dose anticoagulants leads to better outcomes in hospitalized patients with less COVID-19 severe disease remains a very important question,” the NHLBI statement says.

Patients who require full dose anticoagulants for another medical indication are not included in these trials.

The statement explains that COVID-19 is associated with significant inflammation and clinical and pathologic evidence of widespread blood clots. These trials were launched because clinicians have observed that many patients ill with COVID-19, including those who have died from the disease, formed blood clots throughout their bodies, even in their smallest blood vessels. This unusual clotting can cause multiple health complications, including lung failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. 

The three trials are the result of a collaboration between major international partners. The trials include: the Randomized, Embedded, Multi-factorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) Therapeutic Anticoagulation; Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4 (ACTIV-4) Antithrombotics Inpatient; and Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC).

The trials, which span four continents, have the common goal of assessing the benefit of full doses of anticoagulants to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with a lower dose often used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.  

The trials are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.

Adults with inflammatory bowel disease were more likely to continue using vedolizumab, compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs over 3 years, based on data from a retrospective study of nearly 16,000 patients.

Patient persistence with prescribed therapy is essential to managing chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but data on the persistence of patients with treatments are limited, wrote Ulf Helwig, MD, of the Practice for Internal Medicine, Oldenburg, Germany, and colleagues. “With the advent of vedolizumab, physicians for the first time had the choice between biologicals with different modes of action,” they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers used a national prescription database to identify 15,984 adults aged 18 years and older who were treatment-naive to biologics and received prescriptions between July 2014 and March 2017. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment time of at least 90 days without prescription.

A total of 2,076 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,076 adalimumab patients; 716 vedolizumab patients were matched with 716 golimumab patients; and 2,055 vedolizumab patients were matched with 2,055 infliximab patients.

Within 3 years after the first prescription, the overall persistence rates were 35.9% for vedolizumab, 27.8% for adalimumab, 20.7% for golimumab, and 29.8% for infliximab.

In matched-pair analysis, 35.2% of vedolizumab patients were persistent, compared with 28.9% of adalimumab patients over a 3-year period; the difference was statistically significant. In addition, 30.5% of vedolizumab patients persisted, compared with 25.4% of golimumab patients, also statistically significant. A matched-pair comparison between vedolizumab and infliximab (35.7% vs. 30.2%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.119).

In addition, vedolizumab patients were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy, compared with both adalimumab and golimumab patients, with hazard ratios of 0.86 and 0.60, respectively, in the matched pair analysis; discontinuation, compared with infliximab, was not statistically significant.

“Several reasons may account for significant rates of discontinuation reported for all biological treatments in IBD,” the researchers noted. “These comprise differences in health care systems in the concerned countries, including differences in availability of biologicals, access to reimbursed drugs, or different patient care settings,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on specific IBD diagnoses, IBD severity, disease course, and dose escalation, they noted.

However, the study was strengthened by the large sample size and use of a real-world setting, they said.

“Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for persistence differences between vedolizumab and anti-TNF drugs,” they concluded.
 

Comparisons inform choices

“There are multiple biologic options for therapy of inflammatory bowel disease, and response to therapy tends to drop off over time in many patients for a variety of reasons including development of antibodies and escape from the mechanism of the action of the drug,” said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview.

“Intolerance or side effects of medication also may lead to discontinuation of therapy,” said Dr. Isaacs. “This trial looks at therapy discontinuation among four biologics used for inflammatory bowel disease over a 3-year period after initiation of therapy in patients who were previous biologically naive. Reasons for discontinuation cannot be assessed with this data set,” she noted. “There are very few comparative trials with the different biologic therapies in IBD. This trial is important because it compares the two distinct biologic mechanisms of action and continuation of therapy in biologically naive patients,” she said.

Dr. Isaacs said she was not surprised by the study findings. “Discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy was more common, compared to vedolizumab and golimumab. There was no statistical difference in terms of therapy discontinuation with infliximab,” she said. “In general, vedolizumab is felt to be less systemically immunosuppressant with targeting of white blood cell trafficking to the gut, whereas anti-TNF therapy is more systemically immunosuppressant and may be associated with more systemic side effects,” she explained.

The study design does not allow for comment on comparative efficacy, “although the findings are intriguing,” said Dr. Isaacs. “If the discontinuations were caused by lack of efficacy, the findings in this study may help in positioning biologic therapy in the biologic-naive patients,” she said.

The study is “a ‘real-world’ experiment that suggests there is a difference between different biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease,” said Dr. Isaacs. “More controlled comparative efficacy trials are needed that can look at reasons for drug discontinuation between different populations. To date, the VARSITY trial comparing vedolizumab to adalimumab in ulcerative colitis is the only published trial to do this,” she added.  

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Helwig disclosed lecture and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, MSD, Ferring, Falk Foundation, Takeda, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Hospira, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Isaacs disclosed serving on the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Janssen.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

SOURCE: Helwig U et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001323

Story updated Jan. 5, 2021.

Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.

One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.

The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.

While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.

For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.

EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.

Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”

SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).

Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.

One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.

The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.

While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.

For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.

EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.

Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”

SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).

Two recently published studies indicate that COVID-19 infections were already circulating in the United States in December 2019. The question is whether these methodologies that could be applied to track the next pandemic.

One study evaluating blood donations found antibodies on the West coast as early as Dec. 13, 2019, and in blood donated on the East Coast by early January 2020 (Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785). Both preceded the first documented COVID-19 infection in the United States, which has been widely reported as occurring on Jan. 19, 2020, in a traveler returning from China.

The other study, utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) analytics, demonstrated a spike in visits or hospitalizations for cough, a trend that persisted from Dec. 22, 2019, onward, exceeding norms for seasonal flu ( J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562). This spike was interpreted as evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was already underway before the first case was established.

While the ongoing serologic testing of blood donations for viral antibodies “will advance understanding of the epidemiology” for SARS-CoV-2 and “inform allocation of resources and public health prevention interventions to mitigate morbidity and mortality,” it might also be a strategy for disease surveillance in the next pandemic, according to a team led by investigators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Blood donation surveillance is not now used routinely to monitor for population-based health threats, but it is not a new idea, according to the lead author of the study, Sridhar V. Basavaraju, MD, of Emory University and director of the CDC’s Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Atlanta, and his coinvestigators. Most recently, blood donation surveillance was used in the United States to track the penetration of the Zika virus.

For early detection of respiratory infections, blood donations might have unique advantages over alternatives, such as surveillance of respiratory specimens from symptomatic patients. Not least, blood donation surveillance captures individuals who are not seeking medical care, according to the investigators.

EMR surveillance might also have unique advantages for population-based monitoring of health threats. For one, aggregate data from large EMR systems have the potential to reveal symptom patterns before they become apparent at level of clinical care, according to a team of collaborating investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Washington, Seattle.

Emphasizing an urgent need for “agile healthcare analytics” to enable “disease surveillance in real time,” the first author of the EMR study, Joann G. Elmore, MD, professor in the department of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles, expressed the hope that the approach will “lead to better preparation and the ability to quickly provide warnings and track the next pandemic.”

SOURCE: Basavaraju SV et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785); Elmore JG et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e21562).

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who developed a protocol for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 they call MATH+ have now published a literature review with observational mortality rates in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JICM) that they say supports the protocol’s use.

The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But because the paper contains only hospital-level mortality rates compared with previously published observational data and clinical trials (not data from a randomized controlled trial testing the protocol), experts remain unconvinced the protocol benefits patients.

“This is not a study by any stretch of the imagination,” Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, told Medscape Medical News via email. “It is comparative data which should never be used to make conclusions of one therapy over another.”

“It’s food for thought for those clinicians [treating COVID-19] and it gives them some options,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, a pulmonary critical care specialist in Wisconsin and one of the protocol developers. “What we really emphasize for this disease is it has to be a combination therapy protocol.”

As Medscape previously reported, MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” includes additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, melatonin, statins, and famotidine. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

The protocol evolved over a few weeks this spring as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action. In March, when Marik and his colleagues formalized the MATH+ protocol, healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients.

Determined to spread a different message, the MATH+ physicians began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team. They tried to get their protocol in front of leading healthcare organizations, like the WHO, and Kory testified remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee in early May. (Kory testified in front of the committee again earlier this month about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. He told Medscape the MATH+ protocol has been updated to include ivermectin since the submission to JICM.)

The physicians have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug.

In the newly published JICM article, the researchers describe a mix of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and basic science research that inform each of the individual pieces of the MATH+ protocol. Some of the cited research pertains specifically to the treatment of COVID-19.

Other studies the authors use to support the protocol are based on data from other viral outbreaks, like H1N1 and SARS-CoV, as well as other medical conditions, like nonviral acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. The researchers did not conduct a randomized controlled trial of MATH+ for patients with COVID-19 because, as they write in the article, they did not believe they had the clinical equipoise required for such a study.

“With respect to each of the individual ‘core’ therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit,” they wrote in the paper.

“With a new disease, it is totally reasonable to take your best guess at a therapy,” wrote F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University School of Medicine, in an email to Medscape. “When there is limited information, you go with what you have. What I take issue with here is the authors’ implication that that’s where the scientific process stops. In my mind, it’s actually just the beginning.” Every investigator believes his or her intervention is beneficial but is not sure — that’s why they conduct a randomized controlled trial, Wilson said.

“Without robust trials, we are left with too many options on the table and no way to know what helps — leading to this ‘throw the book at them’ approach, where you just pick your favorite molecule and give it,” said Wilson. 

Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, echoed this sentiment: “Many of the individual components could be expected to provide benefit and combining therapies is something physicians often do,” Parnia said in an email to Medscape. “I think this is a promising approach; however, this ultimately needs to be studied.”

The article includes previously unpublished observational mortality rates from two hospitals where the physicians have used the protocol: United Memorial Hospital in Houston, Texas and Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, Virginia. At United Memorial, MATH+ was “systematically” followed for patients admitted to the hospital, and at Norfolk General it was followed for patients admitted to the ICU. The two hospitals treated 140 and 191 COVID-19 patients with MATH+, respectively, as of July 20.

The average observed hospital or 28-day mortality rate at United Memorial was 4.4% and at Norfolk General was 6.1%, for a combined mortality rate of 5.1%. The researchers compared this rate with reported outcomes from 10 studies of more than 400 hospitals in the United States (72 hospitals), the United Kingdom (386), and China (3). The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients at these hospitals ranged from 15.6% to 32%, for an average mortality rate of 22.9%.

The difference in average mortality rates represents a “more than 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality” with MATH+, according to the authors. The data from other hospitals were reported from January to early June, representative of death rates early in the pandemic and before the announcement of the RECOVERY trial results spurred increased use of dexamethasone. 

The new numbers may not be convincing to other physicians.

“The comparison of the outcomes in the two hospitals where this protocol is implemented vs mortality rates in other published studies is quite a stretch,” Wilson told Medscape. “Hospitals with robust research programs that publish large cohorts tend to be tertiary care centers where sick patients get referred. Without data on the baseline characteristics of the patients in these studies, it’s really not appropriate to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.”

“There are many factors that lead to different mortality rates [between hospitals] and it often reflects the quality of general ICU care,” said Parnia. For example, many ICUs were overwhelmed and stretched during the pandemic, while others were not.

“This protocol remains a hypothesis in need of a prospective clinical trial,” said Daniel Kaul, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Comparing gross mortality rates from different centers at different times with different case mixes is at most hypothesis generating.”

“The use of comparative data is useless information…not based on true comparison of groups,” said Cassiere of the average mortality rates. Only a randomized, placebo-controlled trial can prove if a treatment is effective. “This protocol should be abandoned.”

“The MATH+ is based on negative evidence,” Cassiere told Medscape, pointing to trials that showed no effect for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and thiamine in critical illnesses. And, given the “overwhelming positive data’’ for dexamethasone to treat patients with severe COVID-19, its exclusion from MATH+ in favor of a steroid that has not been extensively studied for COVID-19 is “reckless and irresponsible,” he said. 

Kory pushed back strongly against this assertion, pointing to the decades of research on methylprednisolone as a treatment for lung disease and ARDS outlined in the article. “It has far more evidence than dexamethasone,” he told Medscape over the phone.

“Our recommendation is based on a clear understanding of the pharmacological principle to guide prolonged glucocorticoid administration in ARDS and COVID-19,” wrote G. Umberto Meduri, MD, a MATH+ coauthor and professor in the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.